ILNews

Curry: 12-hour arrestee probable cause rule unrealistic

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry told judges Tuesday that a proposed rule requiring a probable cause determination within 12 hours of an arrest in major felony cases would “set up the criminal justice system to fail in many instances.”

The proposed rule change recommended by Indianapolis criminal court judges is on hold for now.

Noting this past weekend’s multiple shooting in Broad Ripple and the slaying of Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Perry Renn, Curry said investigations of such matters shouldn’t be compromised by standards that would burden already strained law-enforcement resources.

“We just feel as a practical matter a 12-hour limit is unrealistic,” Curry told judges of the Marion Superior Executive Committee. “You only have to look back to the events of this past weekend.”

Marion Superior criminal judges have endorsed a 12-hour rule on the advice of counsel, and the committee called on Curry to explain his office’s opposition.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld detention up to 48 hours before a probable cause determination, Marion Superior judges have been advised that detention of a suspect for more than 12 hours could give rise to a civil-rights case, because judges here are available 22 hours a day, seven days a week to make probable cause determinations at the Arrestee Processing Center.

Marion Superior Criminal Term chairwoman Judge Lisa Borges said there was misunderstanding about what judges were seeking. Rather than a full probable cause determination, she said judges want to make sure people weren’t being detained without explanation.

“There has to be a reason for locking them up. That’s what we’re looking for,” Borges said, noting a simple statement from the arresting officer in most cases would suffice. “All we need is a statement of reason for the arrest.”

Borges said those determinations are routinely made within 12 hours for people suspected of minor offenses such as public intoxication, but not in major crimes cases.

Curry disagreed that it was constitutionally necessary to determine probable cause sooner than 48 hours, and he said imposing a 12-hour rule would jeopardize sensitive and complex investigations, particularly in major crimes. “One size just does not fit all,” he said.

Judge James Osborn said the courts shouldn’t rush to effectuate a rule that could cause trouble for investigating officers and prosecutors. He and other judges suggested a 24-hour rule might be more workable.

“My only concern is, are we being too aggressive?” Osborne said. He cautioned that if the judges adopted a 12-hour rule, “We are basically defining our own liability.”

After lengthy discussion Tuesday, the committee tabled the proposal. Chairman Judge David Certo said he would draft a proposal in consultation with Curry and the criminal court judges to present to the committee later.

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT